You're making bikes that will hover around that 14 pound rate that have genuine built in comfort features that would have pushed bikes past 15-16-17 pounds trying to build that compliance or features in to just 5 years ago.

You have an excellent point there in that my bike (a precursor of your typical Gran Fondo bike if you like, the Kuota Kahn which I take you know but may not remember in detail) does not benefit from the latest tech in CF development.

I'm very confident that the latest developments in CF tech will eventually be implemented in CF rims as well.In the mean time however we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place and it still begs for the question whether or not a small amount of vertical give a la box type rims would be detrimental or benificial to the pro rider as well.I'm inclined to think so based on my own experiments but short of conclusive tests......

But the Khan didnt have the compliance that the GF01 has... I would bet they could build the Khan today with either 200 grams less material and same ride and/or similar weight and an even smoother ride. In fact I should email the Comalli's and ask...

There just isnt much volume to allow for dramatic compliance, but it's there in a few designs. And heat handling is even more impressive. I would say that wheels might be an even better example of cf tech than frames right now...

But then you have open mold garbage with a familiar shape and almost none of the better tech involved in wheels just like frames...

I'm sorry, but pumping your tires up to meet the rolling resistance and cornering grip of a gran fondo just seems ridiculous to me. This isn't a crit where you clip the apex of a tight turn 60x or descending a massive mountain, it's Fred's riding in a straight line for 100+ miles.

The idea of a gran fondo wheel is still does not make sense to me because most of the fondo frames out there deal with endurance through changes in geometry and maybe carbon layup, although honestly, this is probably marketing jargon for "we spent less money on cheaper carbon sheets, but want you to think it's more comfortable." This simply does not apply to wheels, the geometry is fixed, rims should not flex vertically ever. A 32 hole box-rimmed wheel is not inherently more comfortable than a 16 hole wheel just because the spokes are under less tension. If your spokes are flexing on your wheel enough to give you a suspension effect, your wheel is going to break. Now the choice of rim may have some effect in the transmission of bumps to your backside, especially with variations of the rim width, but this has more to do with the shape of the tire than anything else.

In short, if you're buying wheels to improve the comfort of your ride, you're neglecting about a dozen other places that impact ride quality way more.

I'm sorry, but pumping your tires up to meet the rolling resistance and cornering grip of a gran fondo just seems ridiculous to me. This isn't a crit where you clip the apex of a tight turn 60x or descending a massive mountain, it's Fred's riding in a straight line for 100+ miles.

The idea of a gran fondo wheel is still does not make sense to me because most of the fondo frames out there deal with endurance through changes in geometry and maybe carbon layup, although honestly, this is probably marketing jargon for "we spent less money on cheaper carbon sheets, but want you to think it's more comfortable." This simply does not apply to wheels, the geometry is fixed, rims should not flex vertically ever. A 32 hole box-rimmed wheel is not inherently more comfortable than a 16 hole wheel just because the spokes are under less tension. If your spokes are flexing on your wheel enough to give you a suspension effect, your wheel is going to break. Now the choice of rim may have some effect in the transmission of bumps to your backside, especially with variations of the rim width, but this has more to do with the shape of the tire than anything else.

In short, if you're buying wheels to improve the comfort of your ride, you're neglecting about a dozen other places that impact ride quality way more.

This simply does not apply to wheels, the geometry is fixed, rims should not flex vertically ever. A 32 hole box-rimmed wheel is not inherently more comfortable than a 16 hole wheel just because the spokes are under less tension. If your spokes are flexing on your wheel enough to give you a suspension effect, your wheel is going to break. Now the choice of rim may have some effect in the transmission of bumps to your backside, especially with variations of the rim width, but this has more to do with the shape of the tire than anything else.

While I can't explain what is the cause of the differences felt I can assure you however that the difference are quite easily felt. Since it affects comfort and the relative ease with which a wheel is brought up to speed I assume it must be a minor amount of vertical flex.

Two set of wheels that are much alike in build but differ mainly by their rims are Campagnolo's Neutron and Hyperon.The main difference being the rim material.While I won't complain by saying the Hyperons are not comfy, they are, the Neutron are simply on another planet when it comes to being comfortable.I'm sure there must be other examples out there.

I've been thinking a lot about such a wheelset in the past year, fdegrove.For my next bike i'm also looking for something like a 'race-oriented' gran fondo bike (since i believe that a comfortable ride is nice, but it still is a race bike you are riding, and you're not in your comfy sofa at home… Besides, pro riders also do 200k's a day on a proper race bike)This being said, my ideal wheelset for this bike would be: Alchemy hubs (durability) and HED C2 rims or the new Pacenti rims from Fairwheelbikes (because of there width and they are also durable products), laced with 20/24 cx-ray spokes (great spokes, and i'm a light rider, so this spoke count would be enough for me for any circumstances) and brass niples (because of durability).

This would be a 1450-1500 grams wheelset that would realy kick some ass...

_________________I Will make the leap

Last edited by Stockie on Fri Jan 25, 2013 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

With regards to the original question, I am not terribly bugged by the options available. In fact, I am so pleased with my 32 hole Nemesis rims laced 3x with DT Competition spokes to Campy Record hubs that I can't imagine using anything else in these types of events. Since departing from "traditional handbuilt" wheelsets around the year 2000 or so, I have owned Campy Nucleons, Campy Eurus (steel spokes), Campy Neutrons, and HED Belgium rims laced with DT Aerolite spokes to DT Swiss 190 hubs, and in the carbon world... Reynolds DVUL46C's laced with DT Aerolites to190 hubs, and Campy Bora Ultra Twos. I find the Nemesis wheelsets to be among the smoothest of all. The Nemesis wheels are a bit heavier for sure, but I don't feel held back at all in events like these. I guess the answer is that there still seem to be quite a few rim/hub/spoke combinations that you can build yourself that will really fit the bill of what you're looking for.

I have no trouble riding my C59 or EPQ all day long as far as comfort goes, but I have to say I was quite impressed by the "give" in the frame of the TREK Domane in the shop. Haven't ridden one though. The biggest issue these days with current "race" frames is probably getting enough tire clearance for bigger tires if you care to use them. I think it's also interesting to note that the same tire (a Continental 4000s clincher) sits a fair bit higher on the HED Belgium rim than it does mounted on the Neutron rim, so much so that I could use the Neutron wheelset with a set of full fenders (mudguards) but not so with the HEDs. The same clinchers on the HEDS however, do offer a slightly nicer ride quality than when mounted on the Neutrons, so there is something to be said for wider rims in this regard as they relate to clinchers. I'm not at all sure the same can be said for tubulars however, but I guess the claim of being more aerodynamic might apply, but I'm not one to ask as if I can't tell the difference myself while riding, then the benefits are either marketing driven are so small that I don't give a poop.

I think the stainless steel spokes help a lot too. With all the aluminum or zircal or carbon or whatever spoke offerings out there (oh yeah, I've had a set of Fulcrum Racing Zeros as well), it's easy to forget what a nice wheelset with steel spokes is like.

With all the aluminum or zircal or carbon or whatever spoke offerings out there (oh yeah, I've had a set of Fulcrum Racing Zeros as well), it's easy to forget what a nice wheelset with steel spokes is like.

I'm not sure I read you correctly but from my experience it's been rather hard not to forget the harshness of the aluminium spokes and whatever else was responsible for this harshness. Not the kind of wheel you want to be riding for hundreds of miles non-stop regardless of tyres and frame IMHO.

@CharlesM: That Kahn is exactly like mine and I'm well aware of the fact that carbon fibre tech has moved on since then. It's still a beauty though and while not perfect it was and in some areas still is ahead of its time. Still have a couple of Viking HB in the running too. I'll PM you later on that if you don't mind.Must say that Zipp/YouTube vid is very impressive and very promising.

I'm glad to learn that CF tech developments implement the idea of designing for some vertical flex into both frame and rim design as I feel it's very important to allow this little bit of flex in order to optimise the man/machine relationship.

Ciao,

_________________Being a snob is an expensive hobby.

Last edited by fdegrove on Fri Jan 25, 2013 1:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

@Fdegrove, I think you misread me or I mistyped. I'm with you on the harshness of the aluminum etc spokes. I'll have to check what I posted again if you came up with that interpretation of my post. Sorry. I was saying how much I appreciate the stainless steel spokes wheels, especially a nice classic 3x build.... Ah, I see how you got that now from my post. Just meant because there's so much other stuff out there it's easy to forget about how good the "old stuff" really was, and is. Unless of course, you've owned the old stuff.

A 32 hole box-rimmed wheel is not inherently more comfortable than a 16 hole wheel just because the spokes are under less tension. If your spokes are flexing on your wheel enough to give you a suspension effect, your wheel is going to break. Now the choice of rim may have some effect in the transmission of bumps to your backside, especially with variations of the rim width, but this has more to do with the shape of the tire than anything else.

I used to be a big fan of 32 3x builds with Open Pro or Ambrosio rims. But not anymore. I recently bought a Gran Fondo bike that came with a set of Easton EA90 RT wheels. I tried to sell the wheels because I don't like low spoke count wheels, and I don't like radial lacing, especially at the rear. I wasn't able to get rid of them, so thought I might as well ride them myself. And... I was seriously impressed with the comfort. They are now my everyday wheelset. My Open Pro wheelset is now being used on my girlfriends bike and the Ambrosio on the winter bike.My next set will definately be handbuilt with wide rims. Probably a set of 24/28 Pacenti SL23 with Aerolites laced 2x all around on a set of DT 240s hubs.

I've got the parts for a 20/28 2x low profile set at home - Bitex, DT Revos, Velocity A23s and will build them sometime in the next two weeks.

The problem is how to compare them objectively to my 50mm carbon clinchers - I'm not gonna swap the Vittoria open paves and latex tubes back and forth between the wheels, and these are going to make the biggest difference.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum